"Obama would regulate new 'bubbles'"

[bamacre]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21393.html

?We know that an economy built on reckless speculation, inflated home prices and maxed-out credit cards does not create lasting wealth. It creates the illusion of prosperity, and it?s endangered us all,? Obama said recently.

Very true.

But then, isn't he trying to re-inflate home prices? Isn't he maxing out the government's credit card? To the point in which China even says "hey, hold on now?"

But rather than me carry on, I think Thomas Woods says it best...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods108.html

Government is going to stop bubbles it creates, and prevent their inevitable busts. :laugh:

 

[Slew Foot]

Except he's ignoring the biggest most dangerous bubble of them all, the government bubble.

 

[jpeyton]

Regulaaators, mount up!

 

[Farang]

I'm mixed on his plans, I think he underestimates the precedent he is setting for a boob like Bush to fiddle with the economy. America is not known for electing competent presidents. Whatever confidence Obama has in himself I'm wondering if he has that in future leaders.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Except he's ignoring the biggest most dangerous bubble of them all, the government bubble.

Instead of an ignorant smart ass remark it would have been nice if you would elaborate more..

 

[JEDIYoda]

Actually the concept is fine.... The problem is where to draw the line in the regulation process!

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Except he's ignoring the biggest most dangerous bubble of them all, the government bubble.

Who will bail out President Obama and the nation from bankruptcy?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Except he's ignoring the biggest most dangerous bubble of them all, the government bubble.

Who will bail out President Obama and the nation from bankruptcy?

You honestly think that will happen??? If it does then Obama will NOT have corrected all the damage that GWB allowed to happen under his watch!

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Farang
I'm mixed on his plans, I think he underestimates the precedent he is setting for a boob like Bush to fiddle with the economy. America is not known for electing competent presidents. Whatever confidence Obama has in himself I'm wondering if he has that in future leaders.

Except you forgot one thing.... Obama does have a brain.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Actually the concept is fine.... The problem is where to draw the line in the regulation process!

Are you serious? The concept is fine?

So the solution is not to stop the loose & easy money policy of the Fed, but to instead, dictate where the money goes and who gets it? Seriously? :laugh:

 

[JSFLY]

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21393.html

?We know that an economy built on reckless speculation, inflated home prices and maxed-out credit cards does not create lasting wealth. It creates the illusion of prosperity, and it?s endangered us all,? Obama said recently.

Very true.

But then, isn't he trying to re-inflate home prices? Isn't he maxing out the government's credit card? To the point in which China even says "hey, hold on now?"

But rather than me carry on, I think Thomas Woods says it best...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods108.html

Government is going to stop bubbles it creates, and prevent their inevitable busts. :laugh:

That's government and public policy for ya. Taking the republican position is so easy.... criticize, criticize, criticize. But in the end would you rather have the GOP in charge?

Just to illustrate, come up with a solution to our financial crisis and I'll bet you I can poke holes in it all day. Easy as pie.

 

[EXman]

UnAmerican:

But what Obama rarely says about ending the ?cycle of bubble and bust? is this: He?s prepared to intervene to make sure that kind of red-hot growth doesn?t occur.

And he?s willing to do it with added government regulation if needed to prevent any one sector of the economy from getting out of balance ? the way the dot-com boom did in the 1990s and the real-estate market did earlier this decade.

This is wrong on so many levels. 1st one is that he knows better than everyone else how to reign in an economy? What an arrogant POS.

Centeralized government here we come!

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Farang
I'm mixed on his plans, I think he underestimates the precedent he is setting for a boob like Bush to fiddle with the economy. America is not known for electing competent presidents. Whatever confidence Obama has in himself I'm wondering if he has that in future leaders.

Except you forgot one thing.... Obama does have a brain.

My point is that why doesn't Obama's brain understand that future presidents may not have one?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: JSFLY
That's government and public policy for ya. Taking the republican position is so easy.... criticize, criticize, criticize. But in the end would you rather have the GOP in charge?

When Bush was in office, I did exactly that. Criticize, criticize, criticize.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Farang
I'm mixed on his plans, I think he underestimates the precedent he is setting for a boob like Bush to fiddle with the economy. America is not known for electing competent presidents. Whatever confidence Obama has in himself I'm wondering if he has that in future leaders.

Except you forgot one thing.... Obama does have a brain.

My point is that why doesn't Obama's brain understand that future presidents may not have one?

It's moot point. There's no doubt that Obama is an intelligent person. But no one person, no group of people, no government can adequately, effectively, and efficiently decide what resources should go where and to whom. Not in the long run. The market will always do a better job, but only if left alone, and certainly not when you have a central bank flooding the market with loads of new money. When government disagrees, and it normally does, it is either due to extreme arrogance, ignorance, corruption, but most likely, all of the above.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Farang
I'm mixed on his plans, I think he underestimates the precedent he is setting for a boob like Bush to fiddle with the economy. America is not known for electing competent presidents. Whatever confidence Obama has in himself I'm wondering if he has that in future leaders.

Except you forgot one thing.... Obama does have a brain.

My point is that why doesn't Obama's brain understand that future presidents may not have one?

It's moot point. There's no doubt that Obama is an intelligent person. But no one person, no group of people, no government can adequately, effectively, and efficiently decide what resources should go where and to whom. Not in the long run. The market will always do a better job, but only if left alone, and certainly not when you have a central bank flooding the market with loads of new money. When government disagrees, and it normally does, it is either due to extreme arrogance, ignorance, corruption, but most likely, all of the above.

BHO has arrogance and corruption down to a science. Ignorance on the other hand he's still perfecting that according to Sarkozy.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Except he's ignoring the biggest most dangerous bubble of them all, the concentration of wealth.

Fixed.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Actually the concept is fine.... The problem is where to draw the line in the regulation process!

Are you serious? The concept is fine?

So the solution is not to stop the loose & easy money policy of the Fed, but to instead, dictate where the money goes and who gets it? Seriously? :laugh:

At what point do you factor in 'financial blackmail' to the equation, if the government stands up too much to the financial industry?

Look what happened when the corpotocracy was unhappy with Chavez in Venezuela - they controlled the essential infastructure, such as the companies than ran the oil operations, and they simply took the passwords and went home, hoping for the economic pain to force his hand. When that didn't work, the buisness leaders organized a months-long cripping economic shutdown again trying to make him unpopular and driven from office. The public interest mattered nothing, their own interest was the issue.

Are the financial companies just bending over and taking their spanking, or do they have any leverage over the government to force its hand on policy, to an extent?

If they do, you certainly won't hear it from the companies or the government, but only from the investigate writers and whistle-blowers.

I haven't really seen any direct evidence of this sort of blackmail going on, but it is a question barely under the surface, considering how any alternatives to TARP got no hearings, no consideration, the only option pursued was the plan that gave them vast sums with little oversight.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Farang
I'm mixed on his plans, I think he underestimates the precedent he is setting for a boob like Bush to fiddle with the economy. America is not known for electing competent presidents. Whatever confidence Obama has in himself I'm wondering if he has that in future leaders.

Except you forgot one thing.... Obama does have a brain.

My point is that why doesn't Obama's brain understand that future presidents may not have one?

It's moot point. There's no doubt that Obama is an intelligent person. But no one person, no group of people, no government can adequately, effectively, and efficiently decide what resources should go where and to whom. Not in the long run. The market will always do a better job, but only if left alone, and certainly not when you have a central bank flooding the market with loads of new money. When government disagrees, and it normally does, it is either due to extreme arrogance, ignorance, corruption, but most likely, all of the above.

BHO has arrogance and corruption down to a science. Ignorance on the other hand he's still perfecting that according to Sarkozy.

and your point?? other than an opinion based on what praytell? Surely not intellect...
More than likely based on his color and possibly his political affiliation. I just love it when ignorance and stoopidity decides to post on these forums!

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Farang
I'm mixed on his plans, I think he underestimates the precedent he is setting for a boob like Bush to fiddle with the economy. America is not known for electing competent presidents. Whatever confidence Obama has in himself I'm wondering if he has that in future leaders.

Except you forgot one thing.... Obama does have a brain.

My point is that why doesn't Obama's brain understand that future presidents may not have one?

It's moot point. There's no doubt that Obama is an intelligent person. But no one person, no group of people, no government can adequately, effectively, and efficiently decide what resources should go where and to whom. Not in the long run. The market will always do a better job, but only if left alone, and certainly not when you have a central bank flooding the market with loads of new money. When government disagrees, and it normally does, it is either due to extreme arrogance, ignorance, corruption, but most likely, all of the above.

BHO has arrogance and corruption down to a science. Ignorance on the other hand he's still perfecting that according to Sarkozy.

and your point?? other than an opinion based on what praytell? Surely not intellect...
More than likely based on his color and possibly his political affiliation. I just love it when ignorance and stoopidity decides to post on these forums!

oh the irony :laugh:

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Farang
I'm mixed on his plans, I think he underestimates the precedent he is setting for a boob like Bush to fiddle with the economy. America is not known for electing competent presidents. Whatever confidence Obama has in himself I'm wondering if he has that in future leaders.

Except you forgot one thing.... Obama does have a brain.

My point is that why doesn't Obama's brain understand that future presidents may not have one?

It's moot point. There's no doubt that Obama is an intelligent person. But no one person, no group of people, no government can adequately, effectively, and efficiently decide what resources should go where and to whom. Not in the long run. The market will always do a better job, but only if left alone, and certainly not when you have a central bank flooding the market with loads of new money. When government disagrees, and it normally does, it is either due to extreme arrogance, ignorance, corruption, but most likely, all of the above.

BHO has arrogance and corruption down to a science. Ignorance on the other hand he's still perfecting that according to Sarkozy.

and your point?? other than an opinion based on what praytell? Surely not intellect...
More than likely based on his color and possibly his political affiliation. I just love it when ignorance and stoopidity decides to post on these forums!

I was agreeing with him.

and it never stops you...

At least I'm honest to say President Bush was wrong on many subjects and also very arrogant and corrupt. I'm being honest. If you cannot say that BHO is breaking campaign promises with his appointments and not reopening NAFTA then you aint.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Actually the concept is fine.... The problem is where to draw the line in the regulation process!

Are you serious? The concept is fine?

So the solution is not to stop the loose & easy money policy of the Fed, but to instead, dictate where the money goes and who gets it? Seriously? :laugh:

At what point do you factor in 'financial blackmail' to the equation, if the government stands up too much to the financial industry?

Stand up to them too much? When have they began that? Hell, the financial industry has its own damn branch of government. If you want to regulate the financial industry, get rid of the Federal Reserve, get rid of fractional reserve banking. What we have now is basically legalized fraud. Stand up to them? Hell, they're practically running the country, and into the ground.

Look what happened when the corpotocracy was unhappy with Chavez in Venezuela - they controlled the essential infastructure, such as the companies than ran the oil operations, and they simply took the passwords and went home, hoping for the economic pain to force his hand. When that didn't work, the buisness leaders organized a months-long cripping economic shutdown again trying to make him unpopular and driven from office. The public interest mattered nothing, their own interest was the issue.

You want that to be our future?

Are the financial companies just bending over and taking their spanking, or do they have any leverage over the government to force its hand on policy, to an extent? If they do, you certainly won't hear it from the companies or the government, but only from the investigate writers and whistle-blowers.

Are you kidding me? We just gave them trillions of dollars. It is us who are bent over taking a raping.

I haven't really seen any direct evidence of this sort of blackmail going on, but it is a question barely under the surface, considering how any alternatives to TARP got no hearings, no consideration, the only option pursued was the plan that gave them vast sums with little oversight.

And letting them fail was never an option either, was it?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Actually the concept is fine.... The problem is where to draw the line in the regulation process!

Are you serious? The concept is fine?

So the solution is not to stop the loose & easy money policy of the Fed, but to instead, dictate where the money goes and who gets it? Seriously? :laugh:

At what point do you factor in 'financial blackmail' to the equation, if the government stands up too much to the financial industry?

Stand up to them too much? When have they began that? Hell, the financial industry has its own damn branch of government. If you want to regulate the financial industry, get rid of the Federal Reserve, get rid of fractional reserve banking. What we have now is basically legalized fraud. Stand up to them? Hell, they're practically running the country, and into the ground.

Look what happened when the corpotocracy was unhappy with Chavez in Venezuela - they controlled the essential infastructure, such as the companies than ran the oil operations, and they simply took the passwords and went home, hoping for the economic pain to force his hand. When that didn't work, the buisness leaders organized a months-long cripping economic shutdown again trying to make him unpopular and driven from office. The public interest mattered nothing, their own interest was the issue.

You want that to be our future?

Are the financial companies just bending over and taking their spanking, or do they have any leverage over the government to force its hand on policy, to an extent? If they do, you certainly won't hear it from the companies or the government, but only from the investigate writers and whistle-blowers.

Are you kidding me? We just gave them trillions of dollars. It is us who are bent over taking a raping.

I haven't really seen any direct evidence of this sort of blackmail going on, but it is a question barely under the surface, considering how any alternatives to TARP got no hearings, no consideration, the only option pursued was the plan that gave them vast sums with little oversight.

And letting them fail was never an option either, was it?

Bamacre, you really missed the 'tone' in my post in a number of areas.

For example, when I raised the idea of the financial industry having some power of economic blackmail, and define it by saying if the government stands up to them too much they may have enough leverage to block it, I was not saying the government *has* stoood up to them strongly and triggered that blackmail, but you misread the comment and challenged 'my claim that the government is strongly standing up to them.' I've posted repeatedly that they are not doing so.

In another case, I asked rhetorically, 'is the financial industry just bending over to take punishment' - the question was meant to imply 'probably not' and suggest that they may be making their own plans, and working them, to protect their interests more than we see. But you appear not to have recognized the 'tone' of my comment, and took it to mean I suggested they *are* 'just bending over' - something I don't really see them doing.

Hope this clears up some points.

 

[nullzero]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Except he's ignoring the biggest most dangerous bubble of them all, the government bubble.

Who will bail out President Obama and the nation from bankruptcy?

The tax payers? At least that is what our government is betting on.... They would have to tax us all 90%, to even think about paying off the debt and future liabilities. The government bubble when it pops will be like a dam bursting (you can only plug the holes for so long).

 

[aphex]

Sorry, you lost me when you cursed in the subtitle.